按选举显著性对选民动员策略进行元分析

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2024-01-02 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102729
Christopher B. Mann , Katherine Haenschen
{"title":"按选举显著性对选民动员策略进行元分析","authors":"Christopher B. Mann ,&nbsp;Katherine Haenschen","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102729","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>After hundreds of field experiments assessing their effectiveness, voter mobilization tactics are often considered “settled science.” In this research note, we posit that this assumption is incorrect, due to inconsistent and insufficient attention to electoral salience in the literature. Researchers often conduct mobilization field experiments in low-salience elections due to limited resources and the need for adequate statistical power. However, practitioners often apply these findings in high-salience contexts. Theory suggests that effects of mobilization tactics will attenuate in high-salience elections due to heightened attention. We present refined meta-analytic estimates of common mobilization tactics in U.S. elections—canvassing, phone calls, direct mail, and SMS messages—based on electoral salience. Results show that effects of tactics attenuate 33%–62% from low-to high-salience contexts. We translate all findings into intent-to-treat (ITT) estimates to highlight the impact of declining contact rates. Finally, we identify significant gaps in the research and offer solutions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"87 ","pages":"Article 102729"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379423001518/pdfft?md5=18a9e9811f9a7f2fae2e0c5fbfabeaa7&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379423001518-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A meta-analysis of voter mobilization tactics by electoral salience\",\"authors\":\"Christopher B. Mann ,&nbsp;Katherine Haenschen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102729\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>After hundreds of field experiments assessing their effectiveness, voter mobilization tactics are often considered “settled science.” In this research note, we posit that this assumption is incorrect, due to inconsistent and insufficient attention to electoral salience in the literature. Researchers often conduct mobilization field experiments in low-salience elections due to limited resources and the need for adequate statistical power. However, practitioners often apply these findings in high-salience contexts. Theory suggests that effects of mobilization tactics will attenuate in high-salience elections due to heightened attention. We present refined meta-analytic estimates of common mobilization tactics in U.S. elections—canvassing, phone calls, direct mail, and SMS messages—based on electoral salience. Results show that effects of tactics attenuate 33%–62% from low-to high-salience contexts. We translate all findings into intent-to-treat (ITT) estimates to highlight the impact of declining contact rates. Finally, we identify significant gaps in the research and offer solutions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"volume\":\"87 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102729\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379423001518/pdfft?md5=18a9e9811f9a7f2fae2e0c5fbfabeaa7&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379423001518-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379423001518\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379423001518","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经过数百次实地实验对其有效性进行评估后,选民动员策略往往被认为是 "定论科学"。在本研究报告中,我们认为这种假设是不正确的,因为文献中对选举显著性的关注不一致也不充分。由于资源有限且需要足够的统计力量,研究人员通常在低显著性选举中进行实地动员实验。然而,实践者往往将这些研究结果应用于高关注度的环境中。理论表明,在高关注度选举中,动员策略的效果会因为关注度的提高而减弱。我们根据选举的显著性,对美国选举中常见的动员策略--拉票、打电话、直接邮寄和短信--进行了精细的元分析估计。结果显示,从低显著性到高显著性,策略的效果会减弱 33%-62% 。我们将所有研究结果转化为意向治疗(ITT)估计值,以强调接触率下降的影响。最后,我们指出了研究中的重大不足,并提出了解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A meta-analysis of voter mobilization tactics by electoral salience

After hundreds of field experiments assessing their effectiveness, voter mobilization tactics are often considered “settled science.” In this research note, we posit that this assumption is incorrect, due to inconsistent and insufficient attention to electoral salience in the literature. Researchers often conduct mobilization field experiments in low-salience elections due to limited resources and the need for adequate statistical power. However, practitioners often apply these findings in high-salience contexts. Theory suggests that effects of mobilization tactics will attenuate in high-salience elections due to heightened attention. We present refined meta-analytic estimates of common mobilization tactics in U.S. elections—canvassing, phone calls, direct mail, and SMS messages—based on electoral salience. Results show that effects of tactics attenuate 33%–62% from low-to high-salience contexts. We translate all findings into intent-to-treat (ITT) estimates to highlight the impact of declining contact rates. Finally, we identify significant gaps in the research and offer solutions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
期刊最新文献
Does disability affect support for political parties? Economic growth, largest-party vote shares, and electoral authoritarianism Targeting voters online: How parties’ campaigns differ Masking turnout inequality. Invalid voting and class bias when compulsory voting is reinstated Does decentralization boost electoral participation? Revisiting the question in a non-western context
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1